How much
do advertisers influence
your writings in POPULAR
PHOTOGRAPHY?
They
don't—although you can't blame some for trying.
We allot editorial space according to what we
think the subject or product needs without concern
for whether or how much the manufacturer advertises.
Our primary obligation is to you, the reader.
We only check with advertisers (or non-advertisers
if we're writing about their products) to make
certain our manufacturers' specs are correct.
But the first time an advertiser (or non-advertiser)
reads the write-up of his product is after the
magazine is fully printed.
Our advertising department executives generally
know when we're testing a product and may, before
printing, ask us whether the review will be
good, so-so, or worse. We may tell them, but that's the only information they get.
What happens when manufacturers don't like
what we write? They can lump it. Few products
get through the wringer unscathed—particularly
in our tests—without a few criticisms or
maybe more. But if we do make a mistake, we
publish an "Oops!" correction in a
subsequent issue.
Admittedly, we have sometimes been guilty of
overlooking a fault we should have noticed.
Sometimes a reader will complain that we didn't
sufficiently emphasize what he thinks is a major
defect. He'll insist that it wasn't highlighted
as much as he would have liked because we're
trying to please advertisers. Nonsense. Usually,
if anything, we uncover assets or faults that
no one else has noticed. When we test equipment,
we analyze it according to its class. For instance,
we wouldn't fault the Nikon N55 for not having
all the features of a Nikon N80, but the lack
of shoe-mount accessory TTL autoflash capability
does come in for criticism.
When writing equipment or software analyses,
whether for a test or for "Hands On,"
we first tackle a product's good points; then
the bad, as if we were analyzing a person. If
you have a friend who has a wart on the end
of his nose, your description of him wouldn't
start with the wart. Do warts appear in our
analyses? You bet, but only after the good points.
Often the warts are the lack of features that
the manufacturer should have included—perhaps
missing features that the manufacturer hopes
no one will notice, such as no mirror lockup,
or limited compatibility with earlier camera
bodies or lenses, etc. It's our job to root
out this stuff for you. In our "First Look"
write-ups, we try our best to cover all salient
points, but often we must write "First
Look" from a preproduction sample, which
usually isn't quite working yet.
Don't get the idea that today's cameras and
other products are riddled with faults and missing
features. We know of no "total dogs"
at present. But sometimes a camera has such
a major flaw that we cannot recommend it until
the flaw is corrected. We then hold up the report
until either the flaw is corrected or until
the manufacturer provides us with information
as to what a purchaser can do (free of charge)
if the flaw shows up on the product he's bought.
